Mag's Musingshttps://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com
For when 140 characters just isn't bloody enough.Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:22:31 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngMag's Musingshttps://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com
The science of sporthttps://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/the-science-of-sport/
https://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/the-science-of-sport/#commentsTue, 07 Aug 2012 12:30:05 +0000http://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/?p=84Continue reading →]]>With the track and field events of the Olympic Games well underway, I went down to Loughborough University’s School of Sports and Sciences (Team GB’s preparation base) to learn more about the biomechanics behind Olympic success.

Olympic athletes have incredible strength and endurance

Unlike when the Ancient Greeks first began to compete on Mount Olympus, modern athletes have trainers, dieticians and physios to help them maximise their potential. In 2012, technology and science now also play an important role in assisting athletes to go harder, faster and stronger. Dr Sam Allen is part of a team responsible for analysing the technique of triple jumpers using specially created computer software. By analysing the triple jump process in split-second detail, Dr Allen and his team have been able to show athletes exactly where distance is being won or lost.

Speed

Maximising speed is key to many track and field events, including running, long and triple jump, javelin, pole vault and more. Elite sprinters regularly reach speeds of 40 km/h, with Usain Bolt – the fastest human being ever to have walked (or run) the Earth – able to achieve such a high velocity, he would almost break the 30mph speed limit for built up British roads.

In sprinting, where 100m races start and finish in less than ten seconds, every possible advantage, however small, becomes critical. As Dr Allen explains, the tiniest details really do make a big difference.

“It’s been shown that in sprinting, sprinters have a shorter distance in their feet from the Achilles tendon to the ankle joint compared to non-sprinters,” he explains.

“This, in effect, is a kind of gear ratio, which allows sprinters to produce more force in their legs at high velocities.

“Sprinters also tend to have longer toes than non-sprinters, which just gives them that tiny extra period of contact so they can push off for longer. Distance runners are the opposite and tend to have shorter toes than sprinters.”

Strength

While an event such as the triple jump would not usually be considered to be one reliant on strength, the science shows that, in reality, incredible leg power is a must for all Olympic jumpers.

“The highest force in the triple jump process happens at the end of the ‘hop’ phase, going into the ‘step’. It’s been measured that 22 bodyweights of peak force go into the leg for that brief moment – so for a 77kg triple jumper, that’s almost 1.7 metric tonnes of force (around the weight of a typical sportscar) for that one moment.

“It’s actually the highest measured force to go through any human limb during any voluntary activity – so it’s quite extreme. For this reason it’s been found that triple jumpers have stronger bones than the average person, which probably comes down to training as it’s been found that bone density increases with repeated impact.”

Technique

Power and speed are nothing without control. For the triple jump, perfecting technique can make the difference between a gold medal and a face full of sand.

Simulations have shown that there is no single ‘ultimate’ technique for athletes to try and emulate – each individual athlete has to work hard to perfect their own technique to maximise their own performance. And as Dr. Allen explains, when it comes to triple jump, there are a number of different approaches that can be taken.

“For elite performers, about 30% of the final distance is determined by the ‘step’. The other portions of the jump are made up of balance technique (33%). Hop-dominant techniques are when the ‘hop’ phase makes up 37% of the process, while jump-dominant techniques are where the final ‘jump’ phase is worth 37%.

“Our initial findings seem to suggest you can achieve a similar outcome with a shorter hop and a longer jump, or vice versa. Not necessarily exactly the same outcome – and there may in fact be an optimum – but it doesn’t seem to affect performance too much.”

Performance

As the Games go by, world records continue to be broken as athletes get ever faster, stronger and fitter. But will we ever see an athlete set the bar so high, it will never be broken?

“It’s been predicted so many times that athletes are going to hit a plateau in human performance, but it never seems to happen. Athletes keep confounding every prediction of this,” Dr Allen says.

“Theoretically, it makes sense if we are not evolving through natural selection anymore – selecting mates based purely on the characteristics of strength, speed and power that would improve athletic performance – but it would take a brave man to predict that somebody will one day set a world record that will never be beaten. Humans continually find a way to improve.

Usain Bolt is a case in point – he has hammered a world record that no one thought would be touched and then suddenly you get his training partner running almost as quickly over 200m last season. It’s almost like as soon as one person makes a breakthrough, seemingly everyone seems to follow – it’s a weird thing.”

]]>https://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/the-science-of-sport/feed/1magnificentgeofPushing to the limitNo medals for miseryhttps://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/no-medals-for-misery/
https://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/no-medals-for-misery/#respondWed, 11 Jul 2012 15:21:38 +0000http://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/?p=75Continue reading →]]>IF only moaning was an Olympic sport, Team GB would be odds-on favourites to top the medal table this summer.

Think about it. We would destroy the competition in the synchronised whingeing and no one would come close to us in the high grump. There’d even be a dedicated stadium for it all. It’d probably be built in Sunderland.

Because, while many of us are eagerly anticipating the thrill of the Olympic Games and can’t wait to see Tom Daley break out his Speedos, Usain Bolt break the sound barrier and Paula Radcliffe, inevitably, breakdown in tears, there is a miserable minority out there who seem determined not to join the party.

Not that you’d know it, of course.

Because it’s not like they have spent the last 18 months constantly complaining about the opportunity of having the world’s biggest sporting event in their own back garden at the slightest mention of the dreadfully offensive ‘O’ word or anything relating to it. Oh wait, I’m sorry. Yes they have.

When writer, broadcaster and professional pessimist Charlie Brooker wrote an otherwise agreeable column for the Guardian in April criticising the unfortunate but inevitable corporate-whoredom that rears its ugly, overly-branded head in the lead up to any Games, he couldn’t help but to remind everyone that there’s really no reason to get excited about the Olympics in the first place. After all, he observed, the Olympics is nothing but a bunch people running around and jumping over things, really.

And Brooker was not alone. A quick glance of the reader comments revealed that the feeling seemed pretty mutual among his fellow Guardian-ers.“It’s too corporate!” they cried, probably while tapping away on their iPhones in between sips of their Starbucks’ branded skinny lattés. “You can’t avoid it either,” others droned. “I’ll be glad when it’s all over. Something something, tax payer money. Whinge whinge, blah blah, corporate elitism. Blah blah blah blah blah…” and then I lost interest.

Who knows why these people hate the idea of sport and the concept of fun like they do – although the fact that they choose to read the Guardian might explain it – but if anything, it’s a damning reflection of the miserable mentality that is rampant across our supposedly ‘Great’ Britain.

Sadly, it seems as though a toxic culture of cynicism has slowly seeped its way into the fabric of everyday British life, corroding our concept of community and eating away at our sense of joy.

These are the people who have spent the last few months droning on and on about how they just “don’t care” about the Olympics. Yet, when the time comes in just a few weeks, they will go out of their way to make sure that everyone around them knows exactly just how little they care about the Games, shouting “Look at me! Look how cool and non-conformist I am!”

These are the people who, secretly, would love for something to go wrong during the Games. Who will only watch the opening ceremony so they can tweet their smug satisfaction at every minor malfunction and cowardly snipe at every little detail like the big men and women they are.

They’ll come up with an assortment of minor and easily ignorable reasons why we should think the same as them and it will be painfully transparent to everyone that this has nothing to do with money, corporatism or sport and everything to do with them simply hating that there are people out there who like things they don’t.

And it’s certainly not just sport either. Sadly, it seems as if there are many people who are looking for any excuse to go off on a massive sook about things they don’t like. Today, after BBC Radio 1’s most popular DJ, Chris Moyles, announced he was to step down as presenter of the station’s Breakfast Show, a minority of miserable moaners couldn’t wait to jump at the opportunity to take a proverbial dump on Moyles, his team and the entire radio station. This is despite the fact that if you’re not a fan of Moyles or his show, it is spectacularly easy to avoid him by – and this will come as a shock to some – simply changing the radio station.

This is probably the biggest problem with the cynical nature of our society – the fact that Britons feel the need to rant and rave and bitch and most about even the most trivial and stupid of matters. Whether it’s a radio show, the Olympics, the fact that Andy Murray’s Wimbledon final berth was the lead story on BBC news (despite it being a major and significant British sporting achievement that had signalled the end of a more than 70 year wait), the X-Factor or something equally as unimportant to the overall scheme of life, Britons feel the need to rant and rave about something, anything, everything as if the very existence of these petty little things actually matter in life.

To make matters worse, more often than not, the stuff that Britons love to hate most are so easily ignorable that it is amazing how many people become half as irked by them as they do. Whether it’s Justin Beiber, Adrian Chiles or Jedward who you cannot stand or, like me, you’d rid the world of Apple products, the Apprentice or Radio 4 if given the power, the fact that it is so easy to avoid all of these means that if you truly are getting that riled up about them, you probably could do with revaluating your life’s priorities.

Of course, we live in a society of free speech where anyone is allowed to give their own opinion on any issue, no matter how important or petty. For the most part, a healthy political discourse exists in Britain. There are many voicing legitimate concerns and complaints over issues ranging from health care, education, LGBT rights, equality and class divide. Those voices should never be silenced. If anything, they should be encouraged. But there is a point where genuine complaints about the things that matter stop and instead turn into moaning about the things that don’t. Each and every one of us are guilty of that – except for me, obviously, because I’m magnificent – but in a world where so many of the human population face very real challenges to even survive from day to day, why is it that the land of Britain the Great is so much more guilty of moaning than any other on the planet? Must be the weather.

There comes a point where you must ask yourself; do you want to live your life embracing negativity, finding smug satisfaction in being cynical about the most unimportant of unimportant things and drawing a cheap sense of superiority from that, or do you want to live your life overlooking the trivial and the meaningless factors of British life and focus on the many opportunities for fun and joy celebration that we are presented with each and every year.

The Olympic Games are a celebration. London 2012 will be the biggest party on the planet with virtually every single nation, big and small, invited to join in the fun, play a few games and maybe win a medal or two. It will bring joy to billions across the globe. It will provide a chance for us all to unite under the concept of the British identity by cheering on our men and women and, we hope, to inspire a generation of young people who face a future of economic depression, few opportunities and a country full of grumpy, miserable moaners.

This will be the only chance any of us will ever have to experience and enjoy the greatest sporting event on Earth in our very own country. Will you choose to ignore the opportunity to join the celebration, or will you make the most of it?

With so called ‘mutually beneficial’ dating sites growing in popularity in the UK, it seems that many of our young women really do have a price. Former sugar daddy David Montrose tells me about the young women in his life with whom, to him, love was strictly business.

How would you feel if your young daughter told you she was involved with a wealthy and much older man, who lavishes her with gifts and takes her on exotic nights out – and was paying her to do so?

For the former New York stockbroker – now in his forties – paying young women for the privilege of wining, dining and enjoying other benefits with them was never something he deliberately set out to do.

“I always had an adventurous streak,” he says.

“I was always interested in the ‘no-strings attached’ (NSA) type of relationships, even when I was single and dating. So I figured the best way, as a grown up, to ensure a NSA type of relationship was to venture in the ‘mutually beneficial’ type of relationship.

“A lady I was once seeing had run into financial trouble and asked me to pay her rent for her for a couple of months – I accepted.

“I liked the idea because it gave me some type of control over the situation. By providing benefits, I could still see people and remain somewhat detached at the same time. It was pretty easy to find women for arrangements too.”

After living the Sugar Daddy lifestyle for more than a decade, Montrose – a father and husband – has shared his experiences in his book Sugar Daddy Diary, in which he claims that when it came to his sugar babies, it’s wasn’t just about the sex.

“It is mostly about the companionship and spoiling each other,” he explains.

“Sex is a part of any dating relationship so it is also part of this lifestyle as well, but besides sex I do expect to have chemistry and some type of a connection with the lady otherwise it is not really worth it.”

Sugar daddy dating sites like SeekingArrangement.com – of which Montrose himself is a former member – are completely forward about the form of dating they provide.

Male members have to disclose their annual salary and state how much of an allowance they are willing to give to any woman they are seeking an arrangement with.

Women, or sugar babies – described as ‘attractive, ambitious and goal oriented individuals who have a lot to offer’ on SeekingArrangement’s website – do not have to undergo such a vetting procedure.

With so many attractive young women to choose from, Montrose always knew exactly the sort of sugar baby he was looking for.

“I look for the girl next door type who is perhaps trying to get out of debt,” he says.

“I also like women with goals and aspirations, not purely driven by material things and shopping. They must have a good head on their shoulders, and the right combination of looks and smarts.”

And with Montrose himself willing to spend up to $3,000 a month on each of his sugar babies, it’s hardly surprising to learn that he was able to come to many arrangements with a variety of women over the years.

“I have met many ladies who were classy and a real pleasure to meet,” he says.

“But, as in everything, there are always people who try to do the wrong thing. There were certain cases where some women tried to take advantage of me: such as trying to squeeze out gifts or money right from the start before even an arrangement was discussed.”

Although sugar daddy relationships are, by their very nature, based on convenience and motivated largely by financial gain, he admits that there were times when he began to develop true romantic feelings for some of the women he had arrangements with.

“If I was not married, or if I was closer to their age, those arrangements would have evolved into a relationship just like any other.
“Sometimes I still think about them and in a couple of cases I wish they had lasted a lot longer. It is difficult at times, but it is the reality.”

Many might expect that living the life of a sugar daddy is something a man might want to keep quiet, but Montrose himself has become a prominent figure in the sugar daddy world after setting up a blog where he regularly posts advice and dating tips for both sugar daddies and babies seeking to get the most out of their own arrangements.

“I’ve always liked to write and I found that it helps me think about the various experiences I have been through,” Montrose explains.

“Writing is even like therapy to a certain extent: by writing we can understand our life deeper. Also, I wanted to tell one man’s story about this.
“I get a lot of emails asking me questions about this lifestyle, so by writing the book I thought I could share my opinion.”

For a lifestyle that originated in the United States, Montrose says he is not surprised to see the sugar daddy dating growing in the UK, despite our traditionally more conservative attitudes to love and sex.

“This lifestyle seems to be growing everywhere,” he says.

“You constantly read all these stories about individuals and dating, so it’s bound to happen everywhere, UK included.”

Having first tasted the sugar lifestyle soon after become a father, is Montrose ever concerned about what his children may think of his arrangements?

“When I was very active in this lifestyle my children were too young to understand or know anything about this,” he explains.

“Now that they are growing I am trying to keep it a bit ‘quieter’. After all, not everyone is as open minded as some of us in the sugar lifestyle.”

While his sugar daddy status will likely leave some in Britain shocked, Montrose says he has absolutely no regrets about indulging his sweet tooth.

“I try not to think about any morality aspects of it,” he says.

“I just want to go out, meet people and have some fun. I’m not embarrassed.”

So, Fernando Alonso has joined Twitter. First of all, trust me when I say that I’m genuinely happy and excited for all the Ferrari and Alonso fans I know. This is something that’s been way overdue and after seeing Kobayashi-san join Twitter earlier this year, I can appreciate how exciting it is to see your hero become a part of the amazing worldwide community that Twitter has become. However, with that said, I have to be honest with you all. I’m not exactly thrilled about the prospect of Alonsomania running wild on my timeline over the coming season. In fact, I’m really not looking forward to it at all.

But why on Earth don’t you like Godnando, Geoff? He’s so amazing and brilliant and sexy and other superlatives!

Well, this is what I’m about to explain to you all. I should point out that I’m not trying to turn anyone off the guy, I am simply (as the blog title suggests) musing about my own reasons for disliking one of the most heavily supported drivers of all time.

Let’s set one thing straight before we get going, though. Fernando Alonso is one of the best drivers in the world. There is no doubt about that. Before Vettel went Super Saiyan over the winter of 2010-11 and totally obliterated the most talented grid of all time last season, I agreed with many observers that Alonso was undisputedly the best driver in the sport. There’s no doubting his ability in the dry, in the wet, in a race-winning car or a no-hoper and I would genuinely be surprised if he ends his career as just a double world champion. But there are a few occurances over the last few years that have caused me to lose a lot of respect for Fernando Alonso, and I feel it’s only right that I outline them for you all so you know I’m not just being a blind fanboy.

1) The Doornbos Incident
On September 25th 2005, Fernando Alonso crossed a small black and white line in Interlagos, Brazil for the 71st time and in that instant became immortalised as Spain’s first ever Formula 1 world champion. I remember watching that race, thousands of kilometres away in a living room in Dorset and applauding him. As in, actually putting my hands together in respect for the youngest ever world champion, as pointless as that sounds. Finally, a new, exciting young world champion had arrived to dethrone the mighty Schumacher after five consecutive seasons. It was a great moment, and I couldn’t have been happier for him.

Then came 2006. Under pressure from a resurgent Michael Schumacher who had won the previous three races in a row, Alonso arrived at the Hungaroring with his championship lead under threat and a seven-time world champion right behind him carrying some serious momentum. Then in practice, Alonso had one of his hot laps spoiled by Robert Doornbos who was carrying out Friday tester duties in his Red Bull. Rather than doing what any sensible racing driver would’ve done – remembering that it was only practice, maybe waving his hand at Doornbos in annoyance and then carrying on – Alonso decided to weave at Doornbos after passing him, before deliberately blocking him at the apex of the following corner. It was a silly, childish and, above all, dangerous thing for any driver to do – let alone a world champion. As a punishment, two seconds were added to each of Alonso’s fastest times for each qualifying session. It was this incident, the first of what would be many, that caused made me re-evaluate my opinion of Alonso the driver.

2) The McLaren year
After securing his second consecutive world title, Alonso joined McLaren alongside the exciting and inexperienced rookie and reigning GP2 champion Lewis Hamilton. Things started off well, with Fernando taking two wins in the first five Grands Prix. But then Fernando’s plucky young teammate won the very next race in Canada from pole, before snatching a second pole position start in succession the very next Saturday at Indianapolis. Lewis led the field away from the start, with his far more experienced team mate close behind. This shouldn’t really have been happening. A double world champion, being beaten fair and square by a rookie for the second race in a row. But then Alonso found some pace and began putting Lewis under pressure down the main straight heading into Turn 1. Hamilton held firm and showed he wasn’t going to give up his lead too easily. As the pair rounded the famous banking the next time by, Fernando did something that, sadly, was to become a trademark of his. He started moaning.

Sadly, this has become a familiar sight in F1.

He drove up to the pit wall and gesticulated in a way that could only be interpreted as ‘why aren’t you telling Lewis to let me through?’. Considering that it was the middle of the season, Lewis was leading the championship, was leading the race on merit and had defended his position the previous lap perfectly legitimately, it was hard to work out what possible reason Alonso had to feel that the team should force Lewis to move over for him. It smacked of ‘I can’t overtake him by myself, but because I’m Fernando Alonso, I shouldn’t have to’. Hamilton won the race, as he deserved to, but that incident set the tone for the childish, bitter conflict that was to undermine both of their seasons.

Flash-forward to Hungary. Still in the middle of the season, but with the team now entangled in the Spygate scandal, it was clear the relationship between the rookie Hamilton and his double-world champion teammate had begun to deteriorate. In the third session of qualifying, Alonso blew his first flying lap by running wide. Angry at what he thought was Hamilton ignoring team orders to let him through before their first lap, Alonso passed Lewis and pitted. With only two and a half minutes remaining, Alonso stopped in the box and was given fresh tyres while Lewis started queueing behind. With 1:48 remaining in the session, Fernando was given the signal to leave the pits for his final run. But he didn’t. He didn’t do anything. Instead, he just sat there. For 10 seconds. By the time he finally got going, he had just enough time to get around a start a new lap. By the time Lewis got new tyres and got out of the pitlane, he hadn’t. Lewis failed to make the line in time while Fernando duly took pole position.

Looking back, this was the critical moment where I lost the majority of my respect for Fernando Alonso. Not only was it another childish and stupid on-track action, it was deliberate sabotage. This was up there with Schumacher’s Rascasse fiasco and Piquet Jr’s deliberate crash at Singapore the following year as one of the worst examples of unsportsmanlike driving and cheating F1 has seen. Alonso was quite rightly criticised for it and was stripped of his pole position, but what angers me most about this incident is that – like Schumacher – Alonso fans are all too quick to forget or justify this embarrassing act of cheating by a man who really should not have had to stoop to such depths to beat a rookie team mate. It wasn’t the act of a champion or a truly admirable driver and it certainly wasn’t the act of someone who I would want to cheer and support.

3) New team, old habits.
After two barren but impressive seasons back at Renault (albeit tainted slightly by the scandal at Singapore 2008) Fernando finally got his dream move to Ferrari. Now it’s well established that I’m not very keen on Ferrari, so having one of my least favourite drivers move to my least favourite team of all time only served to cemented my dislike of the pairing. However, Alonso made the most of his opportunity to fight at the front once again and took a memorable debut victory at the season opening Bahrain Grand Prix, emulating Mansell and Raikkonen. Then came Monaco.

Told you.

After a mistake in practice put him in the wall and his car out of qualifying, Alonso was faced with the unenviable task of having to start from the very back of the grid at the most difficult Grand Prix to overtake on in Formula 1. Left dicing with the HRTs and the Virgins after the start of the race, Fernando came up behind young Lucas di Grassi and discovered just how hard it is to overtake around Monte Carlo’s narrow streets – even with a more than significant car advantage. After trying and failing to pass the Virgin and even though di Grassi had every right to be where he was and was defending his position in a perfectly legitimate manner, Alonso lost his temper again and started gesticulating to the young Brazilian as if to say ‘why don’t you move out of the way, I’m in a Ferrari?’. While Alonso eventually did pass di Grassi in a brilliant move, the arrogance he showed in getting angry at a fellow competitor for his own failure to pass him was another unfortunate example of Alonso’s sense of entitlement – something that goes against the very idea of racing and Formula 1.

While Monaco was just a forgettable incident, Hockenheim was, sadly, anything but. For the first time in a long time, the Ferraris were fighting for the lead with Massa heading his team mate exactly one year to the day of the accident that almost cost him his life in Hungary. In the middle stint, Alonso was faster than Massa and had closed right up to the Brazilian. Fernando tried a move, Felipe held firm and just like in Indianapolis all those years ago Alonso found himself running second to a team mate he just couldn’t seem to be able to pass. So what did he do? He did an Alonso, of course. Fernando went straight on the radio to Andrea and started hinting that he wanted them to force Massa to move over. And we all know what happened next. While this horrible mess was more an indictment on the team than it was on Fernando himself, the fact remains that the entire situation would never have happened if it weren’t for the fact that, once again, Fernando couldn’t pass someone by himself, spit the dummy about it and tried to get his team to do his job for him. For a double world champion who is supposedly the most ‘complete driver on the grid’, seeing him celebrate such a hollow victory in the knowledge that he had done nothing truly earn it was embarrassing. It was yet more evidence of Fernando’s childish manner and I honestly cannot find it in myself to take joy in seeing a driver who behaves in such a way be both victorious and so widely adored for being so.

The moment I realised how happy I was Vettel was champion.

And then we come to the final incident that has contributed to me steadily growing dislike of Fernando Alonso – Abu Dhabi 2010. We all know what happened in that race and so I don’t need to recap it for you, but once again it was yet another example of Alonso blaming someone else for his own inability to do his job as a RACING driver and RACE. Yes, it cost him the world championship, so of course he was angry. But that moment, that image of him waving his fists and riding up close to Petrov in an intimidatory manner after the end of the race will stay with me forever. Not because it made me angry, but because it provided me with an large sense of satisfaction in seeing a man who I see idolised by many despite all the evidence of his childish and arrogant character being well and truly humbled not just by a Russian pay-driver but by the newly crowned world champion. The man who took a championship that by every right was Alonso’s and then followed it up with the most dominating performance over a season we’ve seen since the early ’00s. The man who now has just as many driver’s championships as Fernando, who is infinitely more likable and equally skilled and is still dismissed by many Ferrari fanboys as being less than the Mighty Alonso just because he drives a Red Bull.

Again, Fernando Alonso is an amazing driver. It’s because he is so talented that it makes me so angry to see him resort to such silly behaviour sometimes. And he is by no means my least favourite driver. I have a long-standing dislike of Michael Schumacher that is even more intense than my dislike of Alonso for a number of reasons. But it is for all these incidents, all these silly, unfortunate examples of regrettable behaviour that I simply refuse to cheer for Fernando Alonso. I respect his abilities, I wish I could respect the driver.

]]>https://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/why-i-will-never-cheer-for-fernando-alonso/feed/37Two-time Formula 1 WDC Fernando AlonsomagnificentgeofTwo-time Formula 1 WDC Fernando AlonsoIndyMonacoPetrovI may not love God, but I love many of those who do…https://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/i-may-not-love-god-but-i-love-many-of-those-who-do/
https://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/i-may-not-love-god-but-i-love-many-of-those-who-do/#commentsMon, 13 Feb 2012 20:29:03 +0000http://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/?p=27Continue reading →]]>‘Schadenfreude’ is a horrible word, when you think about it. Not only do you feel like a pretentious knob when you try to use it in a sentence and offend roughly 90 million people across the channel when you inevitably botch how it’s supposed to be pronounced, when you think about what it means – ‘pleasure derived by someone from another person’s misfortune’ – it’s really not something you should enjoy half as much as you undoubtedly do when you feel it.

Remember kids, all REAL man are feminists too.

It’s without the slightest, faintest trace of guilt, however, that I admit the word ‘schadenfreude’ perfectly described my reaction to learning of the catastrophic meltdown(warning, there’s some pretty offensive stuff on there) of popular YouTube user and early front-runner for Twat of the Year, ‘TheAmazingAtheist’, earlier this week. While telling a rape victim that the man who took so much from her when he committed the sickening act deserves a medal for doing so is pretty bloody offensive to say the least, I also couldn’t say that it was the first time this obnoxious, arrogant piss-bag had offended me.

But despite his complete intolerance for any theological viewpoint or appreciation of any kind and the unnecessarily vulgar manner in which he puts his own thoughts across in his videos, they’re not what bother me most about this guy. The main reason I get so offended by this ‘man’? Because I’m an atheist, too.

I’m a young man who has given the mysteries of life and the universe probably as much thought as any of us have and I’ve come to my own conclusions about the context of my own existence on this crazy, beautiful little speck we call ‘Earth’. Or ‘Terra’. Or ‘Zemlja’, or whatever it is in your language. While I don’t know and doubt humanity will ever get close to knowing how and why we all came to be, I’m convinced in my own mind that it wasn’t because a supernatural being willed us into existence in ‘his’ own image, and I honestly don’t think there is anything that could happen or anything anyone could say to convince me otherwise.

“But Geoff, surely this means that you must feel religious people are all ill-informed, close-minded, stupid and backward people who all place their misguided faith in the belief of an illogical and outdated concept purely to try and help them reconcile the context of their own being and somehow resist against the cold, chilling realisation that the nothingness of death renders our very existence both pointless and meaningless, doesn’t it?”

Well actually, my rather verbose imaginary friend, no. It doesn’t.

What it all boils down to for me is that some people who label themselves “atheists” don’t tend to differentiate between the social benefits and problems that come from people having faith. When I think of all the friends and neighbours I’ve had during my short life so far, those who stand out in my mind as being the friendliest, the most considerate and the most respectful have all been people of faith.

Back in Adelaide, my next-door neighbours were a Christian family and you’ll have to trust me when I say that they are the nicest people and most respectable people you could ever hope to have in your community. They live ordinary Australian lives – drinking, playing cricket, watching footy at the weekend, killing large spiders regularly – but they are all regular church goers and are extremely active in the community, volunteering for charity service and working with the Salvation Army. When I think of all the non-religious friends I’ve had (who are the overwhelming majority), I can’t think of any, myself included, who have ever done anywhere near as much for their own local community by comparison. Also, while they knew I was a non-believer, not once did they actively try to persuade me to join their church or to read the Bible or anything like that. They never tried to force their beliefs on me or anyone else and I certainly never entertained the thought of trying to do the same to them.

And this is what makes me truly despise the term ‘atheist’. Or, more specifically, the concept of ‘new-atheism’ – the idea that ‘religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.’

‘exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.’

‘wherever its influence arises.’

Herein lies my biggest problem with ‘atheism’. Just as the nice young man responsible for the ‘I Hate Religion, but Love Jesus’ video was not doing anything untoward with his poem, wasn’t trying to condemn us or tell us how we should live our lives or who to hate, but simply expressing his own relationship with God, that was all it took for the ‘Amazing’ Athiest and many others like him to think ‘yeeaaaah boys! Time to go to town on this Christian douchebag!’. Because that’s what all atheists sound like, obviously.

Not only do I think that’s a shame, I think it’s worrying. With the non-religious people on the internet and across the world becoming increasingly more vocal about genuine concerns they have around the impact of religion on politics and pushing for increased secularism (which I support 100%, by the way), what does it mean for the future of our civilisation if some of those non-believers continue to go after any religious person expressing their faith in any context, like in this case? Isn’t there a danger that we’ll start seeing people actively campaigning to get rid of all religion in the world? What will happen then? Will that mean a witch-hunt against Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, anyone with faith?

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fact that there are a number of religious people who really do go too far with how they act in the name of their God. But whether it’s al-Qaeda or the Westboro Baptist Church, surely any reasonable person can recognise that those people are extremists whose actions aren’t representative of the loving, tolerant teachings of the Quran and the Bible? The men who flew planes into the Twin Towers on 9/11, who detonated bombs in Madrid, London, Bali, countless locations in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and others, slaughtering tens of thousands of women and children and innocent men in the process, they were not Muslims – they were terrorists. It pains me to see how many highly intelligent people across the Western world appear to flat-out refuse to acknowledge the separation between the two and instead choose to view those Muslims who preach love, tolerance and acceptance of other beliefs and cultural values in the same light as those extremists with anger in their hearts who preach hatred and intolerance who anyone who dares question their own beliefs.

Ultimately, I think the increased discourse about religion throughout the world can be a good thing for humanity. But it depends on how this whole debate is approached by both non-religious people and people of all different faiths as to whether this will help humanity progress as a species or whether it will lead to even more conflict and bitterness in the world. While I probably share the views of the ‘AmazingAtheist’ when it comes to the existence of God, I know for sure that if you gave me a choice between a world without religion full of people like him or a world with religion full of people like my Australian neighbours, I’d accept Christ into my life in a heartbeat.

]]>https://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/i-may-not-love-god-but-i-love-many-of-those-who-do/feed/3AtheistmagnificentgeofTragedy and Triumph of a Stem Cell Crusaderhttps://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/tragedy-and-triumph-of-a-stem-cell-crusader/
https://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/tragedy-and-triumph-of-a-stem-cell-crusader/#commentsTue, 24 Jan 2012 11:24:32 +0000http://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/?p=19Continue reading →]]>As the ‘Baldy Blogger’, Adrian Sudbury campaigned to raise awareness of stem cell donation with both the public and Westminster. Following his death from Leukaemia at just 25, his father Keith now continues his son’s work. I spoke to him in November to hear his story.

“This picture is difficult for my wife and me,” says 61 year-old Keith Sudbury as an image of his late son, just days from death, appears on the laptop beside him.

It shows Adrian – or ‘Sudders’ to his friends – on the phone with then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown, learning that his bid to win government support for his stem cell awareness campaign had been successful.

“When he received his terminal diagnosis, Adrian wanted to do two things,” Sudbury explains.

“One was to go out in a blaze of glory and secondly he had this wish – to raise awareness about blood, stem cell and organ donation.”

“His blog was successful because he could write in a very simple, down-to-Earth way about a complicated disease,” says Sudbury.

“He could also write in a very compassionate way, so the loved ones of other leukaemia patients would read to find out what was happening to their loved ones emotionally.”

Adrian’s death may have been the end of his personal campaign – but for his father Keith, it was just the beginning.

A former headmaster, Sudbury is now back in school halls across the Midlands, raising awareness of stem cell donation through the Anthony Nolan charity’s Register and Be a Lifesaver campaign.

“We have now spoken to 42,000 students in nearly 700 schools,” he says.

“And we are finding as many as 30% of students want to go on the stem cell register.

“There’s this myth that stem cell donation is all about cracking open spines and taking bone marrow, but that doesn’t happen anymore,” he explains.

“In 80% of cases you have your own hospital room, you’re on a bed for about four hours, blood comes out of one arm and goes into a machine that filters out the stem cells.”

Adrian himself received stem cells donated by an anonymous 30 year-old German woman who will be completely unaware of the difference her actions have made to the Sudbury family and others like them.

While Sudbury will never meet this woman, he wishes he could.

“It would be very tearful because I’d need to go through the whole thing and explain what had happened,” he explains.

“But I think her and her family would be very proud.”

Sudbury is determined to continue the work his son began to bring hope to many other families who are desperately searching for a matching donor.

“I think Adrian himself would’ve been surprised just how successful it has been,” he says.

“We’re finding that students we’ve spoken to are now getting that phone call. Without Adrian and his wish, that wouldn’t have happened at all.”

This success has been of great comfort to a bereaved father.

“I certainly feel Adrian is looking down on us, laughing at times,” he says with a smile.

“He will be very proud of what he has started.”

(Following this interview, I have since been invited to join Sudbury on one of his school visits on February 6th, where I hope to talk to more people from the organisation about his work and the impact it’s having on raising awareness amongst young people.)

]]>https://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/tragedy-and-triumph-of-a-stem-cell-crusader/feed/2magnificentgeofHow Stephen Sharkey succeeds in translating Brechthttps://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/how-stephen-sharkey-succeeds-in-translating-brecht/
https://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/how-stephen-sharkey-succeeds-in-translating-brecht/#commentsMon, 23 Jan 2012 22:37:07 +0000http://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/?p=14Continue reading →]]>(This was something I wrote back in October for the Nottingham Playhouse Theatre, who helped me arrange the interview. It’s about theatre, so most some of you may not find it particularly interesting!)

For many writers whose words are brought to life on the stage, satire has always been a powerful tool through which to challenge the establishment and question the many faces of human nature.
And with the world still reeling from the aftermath of the Arab Spring, Bertolt Brecht’s The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui will take on, perhaps, even greater significance as an example of truly outstanding theatre.

For acclaimed British writer Stephen Sharkey – who has skilfully adapted Brecht’s original German script for this production – this gripping tale of a crime lord’s rise to power in depression stricken Chicago has one of the most powerful narratives he has ever read.

“This is just a great story, a juggernaut,” he says.
“There’s so much to admire”.
“It bears this huge symbolic load – that Hitler is Arturo Ui and Arturo Ui is Hitler.”

Sharkey is a man well skilled in the fine arts of symbolism and narrative that underpin all great plays.

After growing up in the Huyton area of Liverpool, the forty four year-old writer has long been fascinated with language and the power of words.

“I was always interested in words, I suppose,” he says.
“The sound of them, the shape of them and how they made people react.”

After studying both Latin and Greek at Oxford, Sharkey’s first taste of the theatre came when he was asked to adapt Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Grey for the Edinburgh Fringe Festival by a friend.

In an interesting coincidence, Sharkey’s leading man for this debut piece was none other than Rupert Wickham, who played Elyot in the Playhouse’s recent production of Private Lives.
Despite his minimal familiarity with the stage, it was this experience that made the young Sharkey realise that this was what he wanted to do with his life.

“I fell in love with the theatre. I was truly bitten,” he explains.
“I think more than anything, what I loved about it was… hearing the audience and watching their faces as they responded to the story.
“Just feeling their pleasure and the warmth in their reaction and how amused they were – it really felt that through our play we were doing something that was entertaining and enlivening.
“It was as if life had been turned up a notch.”

And it is that rush, that incomparable joy that only live theatre can provide which has been the prime motivation behind all of Sharkey’s many adaptations and original scripts.

“There’s something childish about it, that I’m not ashamed of,” he admits.
“The delight in showing off and being applauded.”

But there has always been a more adult, intellectual side to the thrill of the theatre, the London resident stresses.

“You’re using an art which is 2,500 years old and a still evolving art-form.
“It’s very various and there are so many ways to tell a story on stage and it is just really mind-blowing to get involved and realise all the possibilities.”

For an already experienced playwright, adapting Brecht’s original German script for Arturo has proven quite the educational experience.

“I love working with these great, genius writers – getting under the bonnet and finding out how they work and sharing in the audience’s response to them,” he explains.
“I’ve learnt a lot from Brecht, I have to say.
“About concision, about planning a story economically, about loading up a scene with significance.
“When I read the play, I thought ‘this guy knows story’.”

While the colourful characters and pure drama that Arturo is so richly filled with would make it a great piece of theatre in its own right, Sharkey recognises there is a much greater depth and meaning to this play.

“You’ve got to remember, he wrote this play when he was in exile in 1941, in fear for his life. Not knowing what the future was holding.
“This extraordinary furious energy and mocking anger just pours out of Brecht, but it’s controlled also.
“He’s a master artist because he paints things in big, bold colours but there’s also this extraordinary detailed machinery underpinning it.
“[Brecht was] a great intellectual powerhouse and a radical thinker.”

But can a story first developed more than half a Century ago in a world far removed from ours’ today really carry the same thematic impact as it did in the midst of the Second World War?
Absolutely, says Sharkey.

“We’re still living in a world that is still shaped by the Second World War”, he explains.
“I think in the epilogue, Brecht acknowledges that the world fought back and got rid of this threat, this dreadful tyrant. But with the final line – the beast that bore him is in heat again – that’s Brecht’s warning.”

With both critics and audiences alike singing the praises of this latest production, it seems Sharkey has succeeded in capturing both the spirit and tremendous power of Brecht’s original work and created a theatre experience that is simply, well, irresistible.

]]>https://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/how-stephen-sharkey-succeeds-in-translating-brecht/feed/1magnificentgeofAnd so, we are a snuff societyhttps://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/and-so-we-are-a-snuff-society/
https://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/and-so-we-are-a-snuff-society/#commentsMon, 23 Jan 2012 22:22:07 +0000http://magnificentgeoffrey.wordpress.com/?p=11Continue reading →]]>(The following was written as a column piece for my Masters studies portfolio last October in the week after Dan Wheldon’s fatal accident in Las Vegas)

On Sunday evening, I watched in horror as Dan Wheldon – a racer, a champion, a father – lost his life in a sickening accident during the final IndyCar race of the season in Las Vegas.

On Monday morning, I watched in disgust as his final moments on this Earth were reduced to a voyeuristic spectacle by the mainstream television media.

Without so much as a warning or a disclaimer, both the BBC and ITV shamelessly and willingly ran full unedited footage of the fatal crash during their breakfast news bulletins.

Not only was this grossly unethical, the BBC had blatantly violated its own policy of ‘not broadcasting the moment of death’ on television.

For those many viewers to whom Wheldon was not a familiar name, their single lasting memory of this man will not be of him embracing his parents after winning his IndyCar championship in 2005, or enjoying the winner’s traditional milk drink after both of his Indy 500 victories – it will be of him perishing in a violent explosion of fire and debris.

No, the images were not excessively graphic.

No, banning the footage would not have helped bring Dan back to his loved ones.

But if we are to consider ourselves part of a decent, civilised society, we must ask – why did we need to see him be killed?

The media have reduced a man’s death to nothing more than a disgustingly morbid spectacle.